Stigma

Matthew Clair, Harvard University

Forthcoming in Core Concepts in Sociology (2018)

Abstract

Stigma is an attribute that conveys devalued stereotypes. Following Erving Goffman’s early
elaboration of the concept, psychological and social psychological research has considered how
stigma operates at the micro-level, restricting the well-being of stigmatized individuals. More
recently, sociologists have considered the macro-level dimensions of stigma, illuminating its
structural causes, population-level consequences, and collective responses. This research has
identified how stigma reproduces social inequality through the maintenance of group hierarchies.
Future research should bridge levels of analysis, compare the micro- and macro-level causes and
consequences of stigma among different social groups, and identify the conditions that foster
destigmatization.

Main text

Stigma is an attribute that conveys devalued stereotypes. Erving Goffman (1963, 3) classically
defined stigma as an “attribute that is deeply discrediting.” A discredited attribute could be
readily discernable, such as one’s skin color or body size, or could be hidden but nonetheless
discreditable if revealed, such as one’s criminal record or struggles with mental illness. For
Goffman, stigma is a general aspect of social life that complicates everyday micro-level
interactions—the stigmatized may be wary of engaging with those who do not share their stigma,
and those without a certain stigma may disparage, overcompensate for, or attempt to ignore
stigmatized individuals. Most people, Goffman (1963, 138) argued, experience the role of being
stigmatized “at least in some connections and in some phases of life.” Indeed, Goffman’s broad
definition of stigma incorporates many contemporary discredited attributes, including what he
defined as “tribal stigmas” (e.g., race, ethnicity, and religion), “physical deformities” (e.g.,
deafness, blindness, and leprosy), and “blemishes of character” (e.g., homosexuality, addiction,
and mental illness).

In the decades following Goffman’s articulation of stigma, psychologists elaborated stigma’s

cognitive dimensions and the processes through which it shapes micro-level social interaction.
Much of this research has focused on stigmas understood to be related to character, such as
mental illness or addiction, or stigmas stereotyped as deviant, such as homosexuality.
Psychologists have explored the evolutionary causes of stigma, with some suggesting that stigma
serves sociobiological functions by categorizing and excluding individuals who may threaten a
community through the spread of disease or perceived social disorder. In addition, social
psychologists have focused on the individual-level consequences and coping responses of those
who face stigma in daily interactions. This research has documented stigmatization’s negative
implications for self-esteem, academic achievement, mental health, and physical well-being.
Research on coping has documented how stigmatized individuals manage their stigmatized
identities and cope with specific instances of discrimination that they attribute to their stigma.
This research literature is a subset of a larger psychological literature concerned with individual
coping responses to stress more broadly. Researchers have enumerated numerous coping
responses—such as avoidance, suppression, and identity development—and have identified these
responses’ inconsistent moderating effects on stress.

Until the turn of the twenty-first century, research on stigma in sociology had been less coherent
than its counterpart in psychology. Sociologists relied on the concept when it helped to
illuminate a social phenomenon, but rarely did researchers strive to accumulate theoretical
knowledge around stigma as a fundamental social process. Link and Phelan (2001)’s review of
stigma in the Annual Review of Sociology initiated a distinctively sociological approach to the
study of stigma that since has been refined and elaborated. Drawing on Goffman but
incorporating a broader concern for the operation of power in society, Link and Phelan define
stigma as the co-occurrence of four processes: (1) labeling human differences; (2) stereotyping
such differences; (3) separating those labeled from “us”; and (4) status loss and discrimination
against those labeled. By incorporating the role of power and discrimination in their definition of
stigma, Link and Phelan articulated an approach to stigma that would enable sociologists to
consider how stigma related to fundamental sociological questions, namely those relating to the
social creation, reproduction, and consequences of social inequalities.

Sociological approaches to stigma in the ensuing fifteen years have considered the different
types of, as well as the meso- and macro-level causes, consequences, and responses to, stigma
(see Table 1). With respect to type of stigma, sociologists have focused not only on stigmas
related to character, but also—and with greater emphasis than psychologists—on stigmas related
to heritable, bounded social categories such as race and ethnicity (“tribal stigmas”). These
stigmas are related less to deviance and the violation of social norms and more so to processes of
exploitation and domination (Phelan, Link, and Dovidio 2008). Sociological research on the
causes of stigma has considered the role of the law and institutional practices in the maintenance
of stigmatization. Such practices enable stigmatized individuals’ exclusion from social networks,
neighborhoods, labor markets, the law, and politics. Here, stigma has been understood as both
cause and effect: it justifies exclusion of devalued others and, through such exclusion, reifies
devalued stereotypes. With respect to stigma’s consequences, research in public health has
considered the role of stigma as a fundamental driver of population-level health disparities
through various mechanisms; for sociologists, one main mechanism is the unequal distribution of
material resources given discrimination against stigmatized groups. Sociologists studying
responses to stigma have considered collective responses, such as social movements and legal
change, as well as what could explain variations in responses across stigmatized groups,
interactional contexts, and societies (Lamont et al. 2016).

Contemporary sociological research on stigma continues to draw inspiration from Goffman’s

core insights on the phenomenon, developing measures to understand how different dimensions
of stigma—such as courtesy stigma, structural stigma, or internalized stigma—shape inequalities
faced by different groups and their social relations. Future research on stigma could benefit from
greater comparison across stigmatized groups. Goffman articulated stigma as a general social
process, focusing on how stigmatized individuals often face similar constraints in the
management of social interactions, regardless of the particular type of stigma they face. Research
comparing the experiences, causes, and consequences of stigma across types would enable a
better understanding of the causal role of stigma in the reproduction of social inequality. Future
research could also benefit from greater exchange between psychology and sociology, especially
with respect to detailing the unique contributions of psychological mechanisms (e.g., stress) as
compared to sociological mechanisms (e.g., unequal resources) in the production of health
disparities. Finally, sociologists should develop new approaches to studying destigmatization, or
the process by which stigmatized groups become less devalued in society. Whereas
psychologists have documented the effects of stigma reduction interventions in experimental
settings, sociologists largely have been remiss to examine the external validity of such
interventions or the sociohistorical transformation of devalued attributes.

Table 1. Psychological and Sociological Approaches to Stigma along Four Categories

Meso-level
Micro-level (Social psychology Macro-level
(Psychology) and cultural sociology) (Sociology)
Physical and mental Social closure, power,
disorders, Intersubjective and institutional practices,
sociobiological and symbolic motivations, neighborhood and social
Causes instrumental cultural motivations, segregation,
motivations stereotypes discriminatory laws

Policies/laws,
Individual perceptions neighborhoods,
and attitudes, workplaces, nation-states,
Contexts Body, mind, cognitive interpersonal built and natural
schema relationships environments

Group disparities in
Self-esteem, identity, mental and physical
symbolic worth, health, in/out-group
Consequences Mental illness, stress, interpersonal membership, economic
physical illness (mis)recognition and social inequality

Interpersonal Social movements,

Grit, physiological withdrawal, psycho- institutional/organizational
Responses coping, individual social resources, change, policy and legal
management cultural reframing change

Cross-References

SEE ALSO: Identity; Race and ethnicity; Social Psychology; Stereotypes, Prejudice, and
Discrimination; Stratification and inequality

References

Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Lamont, Michèle, Graziella Moraes Silva, Jessica S. Welburn, Joshua Guetzkow, Nissim
Mizrachi, Hanna Herzog, and Elisa Reis. 2016. Getting Respect: Responding to Stigma and
Discrimination in the United States, Brazil, and Israel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.

Link, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology,
27: 363-385. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363

Phelan, Jo C., Bruce G. Link, and John F. Dovidio. 2008. “Stigma and Prejudice: One Animal or
Two?” Social Science & Medicine, 67: 358–67. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.022

Further Reading

Clair, Matthew, Caitlin Daniel, and Michèle Lamont. 2016. “Destigmatization and Health:
Cultural Constructions and the Long-term Reduction of Stigma.” Social Science & Medicine.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.03.021

Pescosolido, Bernice A., and Jack K. Martin. 2015. “The Stigma Complex.” Annual Review of
Sociology, 41: 87-116. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145702